Content deleted Content added
Relisting debate |
No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] |
:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] |
||
<hr style="width:55%;" /> |
<hr style="width:55%;" /> |
||
*'''Delete''' If even the British Empire-loving "Senior Ediotrs" who made most of these junk articles get kept think this should be deleted, that is a sign. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your fancy school and all the "famous" Imperialists who went there. [[User:MayVenn|MayVenn]] ([[User talk:MayVenn|talk]]) 02:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:15, 5 October 2014
Robert Leycester Haymes
- Robert Leycester Haymes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: absolutely no reason that I can see why this guy should be included: relatively minor commissioned rank, and no notable achievement. Totally unnotable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep seems to meet WP:SOLDIER, I admit that the article needs expansion. --Bejnar (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Not seeing the notability with this one. His rank (lieutenant-colonel) and his DSO are not sufficient. He held no especially notable position.
He doesn't even have a Who Was Who entry.-- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete to the contrary, I don't see how he meets SOLDIER or the GNG. 2IC of some obscure unit, LTCOL and DSO don't add up to notability on the face of it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of notability generally speaking, doesn't seem notable as low-ranking officer with single DSO, and second-in-command in a short-lived, unimportant unit. —innotata 04:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Contrary to comment above, he does have an entry in Who's Who (1935 edition) and Who Was Who (online edition) MJT21 (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct. My mistake. My opinion that he's not notable stands however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep per WP:GNG - there appear to be good sources, although how significant, I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. An entry in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability, like an obituary in the NYT. The professional biographers who produce that publication are not likely to make a mistake about who is and isn't notable. The entry satisfies GNG in of itself. There are also other sources, such as biographies in Whitaker's Peerage and Debrett's Peerage. James500 (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)